[amb23]

In a perfectly rational market, neither mother or father would disproportionately decide to make one choice or another to prioritize or de-prioritize work at the expense or benefit of raising children. Equal numbers of men would be making that same choice as women do. But that's not the case today.

Despite all the hemming and hawing over the wage gap issue, it's clear where the wage gap comes from: childcare, childcare, childcare. Even if women, in general, are making an informed decision to de-prioritize work, it's not a rational decision at the societal level if men don't also make that decision in equal numbers. No one faults a woman for making that decision for themselves and their family. But on a societal level, we're not going to see wage equality until men are given an equal chance to make these same decisions in a way that's not dictated by age-old stereotypes of masculinity and breadwinners.

I think mandatory paternity leave would help here. I also think on-site childcare, or subsidized childcare given to employees as a benefit like healthcare, could benefit both mothers and fathers and help influence more women to stay in the workforce. The costs of subsidizing childcare for a 30-something manager are probably lower than the costs of finding and training someone new to replace them if they're forced to leave the workforce to care for a newborn. There are a number of interventions the private sector can take that can be integrated around pregnancy, birth, and raising newborns that can make work a bit more rational for both mothers and fathers and help retain employees.

[jaredklewis]

> In a perfectly rational market, neither mother or father would disproportionately decide to make one choice or another to prioritize or de-prioritize work at the expense or benefit of raising children. Equal numbers of men would be making that same choice as women do.

Why are you sure of this? Doesn’t this assume that men and women’s natural dispositions to work and childcare are identical? Are they? If so, how do we know?

The shape of the current market could be the reflection of discrimination alone, but I suspect there are other factors.

To me, it seems very difficult to isolate what market phenomena are due to culture and which are due our nature, or what the balance between the two is.

I like the idea of paternity leave (though I feel a little bad for those citizens that choose not to have children), but I doubt it’s going to close the wage gap, or result in a 50/50 split of house wives with working husbands and house husbands with working wives.

[gedy]

> if they're forced to leave the workforce to care for a newborn.

Most professional people I know have quit working because they want to take care of their children. Most only work or return to work because they have to.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

> it's clear where the wage gap comes from: childcare, childcare, childcare.

I've decided recently, just now actually: I don't buy this.

Why would an employer discount a woman's value just because she may, at some point, take time off to care for a child?

Men also leave jobs. Shouldn't employers discount men's value because they may, at some point, leave?

[hkai]

I think the person you're replying to meant that men and women earn exactly the same salary, but childcare means that a person doesn't work or works small jobs part-time, meaning that their income goes down.

Employers do not pay women less just because they can have children one day. In fact, young women earn more, on average, than young men.